Speaking before the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday, US Trade Representative Ron Kirk touted the openness and transparency of negotiations over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the newer Trans Pacific Partnership. Both of those contain numerous copyright and patent provisions. Kirk's statements are sharply at odds with those of the treaties' critics, who say they have been shut out of negotiations.

The day before Wednesday's hearing, a legal advisor to the State Department sent Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) a letter. It argued that ACTA is a "legally binding international agreement," but the Senate doesn't need to ratify it. Why? The advisor, Harold Koh, argues the negotiations were authorized by the 2008 PRO-IP Act. He claimed that because no legislative changes will be required to bring the US into compliance with ACTA, the Obama administration can accept it unilaterally without consulting the Senate, which must ratify all treaties.

But Wyden (D-OR), a leading critic of ACTA, wasn't convinced.

"It seems to me that this really boxes the Congress in on some very important questions," he told Kirk at a Wednesday hearing. "The Congress is now going to have to be looking over our shoulder with respect to whether or not we've done something that could cause an ACTA party nation to sue us."

"All over the world, you've got parliaments and legislators having debates on whether or not to pass ACTA," Wyden continued. "Why shouldn't the United States Senate consider something like this? As you know, the traditional practice is when something is considered a treaty—a binding agreement—it comes before the Senate."

"Congress has frankly asked us to act," Kirk responded. He again pointed to the 2008 PRO-IP Act as authorizing the ACTA negotiations.

At the same hearing, Wyden pressed Kirk on the transparency of the ACTA and TPP negotiations. "The public, particularly those who feel so strongly about this issue, feels shut out," he said. He suggested the negotiation process was not "in line with the president's commitment to transparency and open government."

Kirk didn't flinch. "We have engaged in more public consultations over this Trans-Pacific Partnership, probably by tenfold," he said. "We have had stakeholders participate as observers in a number of our sessions, including those that are concerned about these issues."

"I would defend our record for transparency, for inclusion of all groups, against any other administration," Kirk told Wyden.

If you listen closely to the video of the exchange, you can almost hear Wyden's jaw hit the table. "Right now, there is a requirement for a security clearance to see TPP texts and documents," Wyden noted with a hint of exasperation in his voice.

Transparency theater

Ars asked Margot Kaminksi, the executive director of Yale's Information Society Project, to comment on the debate. "The so-called stakeholder participation in negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership has been transparency theater, not real transparency," she told us. "At the instigation of USTR, all negotiators were made to sign a confidentiality agreement back in March 2010 that does not allow disclosure of documents until four years after the treaty has been signed."

Kaminski described a "public briefing" on the treaty she attended in Peru last October. "Negotiators did not in fact brief us on the substance of the text," she said. "They refused to answer questions of any substance, including basic questions such as whether a draft text would be released before signature."

Many others have complained of being shut out of the negotiations. For example, Sean Flynn is an American University scholar and a TPP critic who attempted to organize an information session at the same California hotel as a TPP negotiating session. The conference room Flynn reserved was abruptly cancelled by the hotel. Similarly, public-interest groups like Public Knowledge have been complaining bitterly for months that they have been blocked from even seeing copies of draft agreements.

So you think more supply-side economics and less regulation are the twin tracks on the path to economic salvation?

Ending the war on drugs and drastically cutting military spending alone are probably two of the best things that could be done for the economy.

Also, framing an argument in either more or less regulation tends to be foolish. The amount of regulation is not as important as what the regulation ends up doing. For example, sometimes the effects of regulations are that they raise the barrier to entry in a market, damaging competition, so more regulations can easily turn the tide further in the favor of established corporations.

Okay guys, enough with the infighting! I think we can all agree that what is going down is bad. So we don't agree on who would be best to fix it. Fine. How about, instead, we all band together and make sure that everybody knows that this crap isn't acceptable, no matter who does it? Wouldn't that be just a bit more productive than this?

Ending the war on drugs and drastically cutting military spending alone are probably two of the best things that could be done for the economy.

Also, framing an argument in either more or less regulation tends to be foolish. The amount of regulation is not as important as what the regulation ends up doing. For example, sometimes the effects of regulations are that they raise the barrier to entry in a market, damaging competition, so more regulations can easily turn the tide further in the favor of established corporations.

It depends on what is done with the money recouped from ending the warn on drugs and military spending.

You have to recall all of this doesn't take place in a vacuum. Government spending has a stimulative economic effect.

If you're of the mind that the economic problems America has can be fixed by cutting out chunks of government I don't think we could have an intellectual discussion on the subject.

Edit: to put it simply, for most of what Ron Paul stands for you'd actually need someone implementing exactly the opposite of his ideas if you wanted America to move in any direction than toward a complete economic and societal collapse.

Transparent! LOL. I only found out about this two days ago. I read that in Aus/NZ the government had specified the details of the negotiations should not be published for 4 years - to protect the current government (cannot find the page where I read that now, but I'll keep trying). The only documents I can access were leaked (in other words the person accessing the documents couldn't conscience what they were doing). EFF page on TPP for leaked docs: http://goo.gl/uuZ7O

It depends on what is done with the money recouped from ending the warn on drugs and military spending. You have to recall all of this doesn't take place in a vacuum. Government spending has a stimulative economic effect.

Yes, the war on drugs and the military industrial complex both provide jobs, but they are among the least productive jobs for us.

Quote:

If you're of the mind that the economic problems America has can be fixed by cutting out chunks of government I don't think we could have an intellectual discussion on the subject.

I didn't say that, and in fact, specified the problem with the attitude of thinking what is needed is more/less government/regulation, but about the effects of said government/regulation. I said ending the war on drugs and reducing military spending are two of the best choices we can make for the economy. I also contend that fixing these egregious mistakes would do more for the economy than the harm the rest of his policy would do, or at least have the net effect of slowing down the rate at which the economy is being driven into the ground.

Follow on from previous post. I have found a reference:http://goo.gl/QdVWm quote "In October 2011 [concerned parties] ask for the release of a secret memorandum of understanding that reportedly binds the participating countries to keeping negotiating documents secret for four years."

Yes, the war on drugs and the military industrial complex both provide jobs, but they are among the least productive jobs for us.

We're on the same wavelength. Unfortunately electing Ron Paul just "fixes" this problem by increasing the unemployment rate.

Quote:

I didn't say that, and in fact, specified the problem with the attitude of thinking what is needed is more/less government/regulation, but about the effects of said government/regulation. I said ending the war on drugs and reducing military spending are two of the best choices we can make for the economy. I also contend that fixing these egregious mistakes would do more for the economy than the harm the rest of his policy would do, or at least have the net effect of slowing down the rate at which the economy is being driven into the ground.

Like I said, it would depend on what fills the void. Just stopping the war on drugs and getting rid of a bunch of unnecessary ATF employees only serves to increase the unemployment rate and let some deadbeats get high out in the open. Cutting military spending is fine, but if you're just going to end up firing a bunch of contractors and their employed ranks with nothing for them to move on to all you do is up the ratio of job pursuant to open position.

Man and I thought Bush was power hungry. Obama is catching up fast, to hell with congress. Even if they are dysfunctional, there is still supposed to be a mechanism in place so that no one man or branch of government has too much power.

I'm seriously for the first time getting scared about what is to come. Why is this administration in such a hurry to do this without any transparency. (most transparent presidency ever) Freaking LOL.

If they even mention terrorism as part of the rational I'm going to do...oh hell, I don't know.

We're on the same wavelength. Unfortunately electing Ron Paul just "fixes" this problem by increasing the unemployment rate.

Like I said, it would depend on what fills the void. Just stopping the war on drugs and getting rid of a bunch of unnecessary ATF employees only serves to increase the unemployment rate and let some deadbeats get high out in the open. Cutting military spending is fine, but if you're just going to end up firing a bunch of contractors and their employed ranks with nothing for them to move on to all you do is up the ratio of job pursuant to open position.

Far too much emphasis is put upon the employment rates regardless of productivity, and often primarily in just the short term. We can let more people retire, we can let someone be supported by their spouse or parents longer. Or maybe we can live the dream given for the future of the average person putting in far fewer hours and having plenty of free time to themselves.

Vote Obama in again and it won't matter, he's already placed in power illegal Czars, no one cared, well Republicans cared, but we all know us Republicans are the "bad" guys here, now he tries another run around on Congress, yes someone is making a deal of it, but he too will be silenced, eventually ALL Democrats bow to the will of Obama and his illegal ways, but hey, it's better to have a semi open tyrant in Washington than another "evil" Republican

Vote Obama in again and it won't matter, he's already placed in power illegal Czars, no one cared, well Republicans cared, but we all know us Republicans are the "bad" guys here, now he tries another run around on Congress, yes someone is making a deal of it, but he too will be silenced, eventually ALL Democrats bow to the will of Obama and his illegal ways, but hey, it's better to have a semi open tyrant in Washington than another "evil" Republican

I don't get the impression that the Republicans are the bad guys. What I see bandied around is they are the stupid selection. (Their policies are good for rich)

The bad guys I see are the rich lobbyists. They immerse all sides of politicians in heavily biased information, just true enough that precursory searches make it seem correct. The poor lobbyist do the same but have less capability to be heard. Occasionally 1 poor lobbyists agenda coincides with rich lobbyists; see SOPA & PIPA.

We're on the same wavelength. Unfortunately electing Ron Paul just "fixes" this problem by increasing the unemployment rate.

Like I said, it would depend on what fills the void. Just stopping the war on drugs and getting rid of a bunch of unnecessary ATF employees only serves to increase the unemployment rate and let some deadbeats get high out in the open. Cutting military spending is fine, but if you're just going to end up firing a bunch of contractors and their employed ranks with nothing for them to move on to all you do is up the ratio of job pursuant to open position.

Far too much emphasis is put upon the employment rates regardless of productivity, and often primarily in just the short term. We can let more people retire, we can let someone be supported by their spouse or parents longer. Or maybe we can live the dream given for the future of the average person putting in far fewer hours and having plenty of free time to themselves.

Okay, so what's the solution? More people living in poverty? A massive welfare state?

There's not one single solution, and there's not even a problem in some cases. If a household of 4 can get by with only one person being employed, that could be preferable to that same household where all 4 of them must be employed in order to make ends meet.

"It seems to me that this really boxes the Congress in on some very important questions," he told Kirk at a Wednesday hearing. "The Congress is now going to have to be looking over our shoulder with respect to whether or not we've done something that could cause an ACTA party nation to sue us."

"All over the world, you've got parliaments and legislators having debates on whether or not to pass ACTA," Wyden continued. "Why shouldn't the United States Senate consider something like this? As you know, the traditional practice is when something is considered a treaty—a binding agreement—it comes before the Senate."

Please forgive me if someone already mentioned this. Do we have a Senator who honestly does not know Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of our constitution? Where it states that the President may sign the treaty, but before it becomes effective in the U.S. that it must be approved by a supermajority of the Senate?

Okay, so what's the solution? More people living in poverty? A massive welfare state?

There's not one single solution, and there's not even a problem in some cases. If a household of 4 can get by with only one person being employed, that could be preferable to that same household where all 4 of them must be employed in order to make ends meet.

Agreed. The problem isn't necessarily that less people are working, it's that average wages have gone down or stayed stagnant over a 30-40 year period(which has the same effect as going down when inflation is counted in). During that same time, more and more households have two workers. Most of that can be traced back to the women's liberation movement, at least in origin. Once most households had two earners, employers don't have to pay as much to each one for the household to maintain the status quo. This in turn causes more of the borderline-poverty households to need two workers, perpetuating the cycle.

Of course it doesn't help that during this time, all Americans were encouraged to buy instead of rent, charge instead of save, etc. That pushed households deeper in debt, which means more people in the house working.

The sad reality is that for the many, many households in America, the options are to have both spouses work, or live in borderline poverty.

I don't know how to fix the problem, so I can't give any real solutions. Theoretically, that's why we elect smart people, because we can trust them to come up with solutions to help. Not that it works out in practice like it does on paper....

Please note, I'm not saying women's lib was/is bad. At all. Seriously. I do, however, think that it had bad effects on the household. Not because women were going to work, but because at the same time men weren't staying home. If more households had made an either/or choice instead of both of them working, I don't think the problem would be as bad as it is. Unfortunately, both genders' pride got in the way.

You have to recall all of this doesn't take place in a vacuum. Government spending has a stimulative economic effect.

You are either delusional or a govt employee. The only thing govts do economically is transfer money from productive class to the lazy one, or their connected buddies.The only role of government in business should be to ensure level playing field for everyone.

You have to recall all of this doesn't take place in a vacuum. Government spending has a stimulative economic effect.

You are either delusional or a govt employee. The only thing govts do economically is transfer money from productive class to the lazy one, or their connected buddies.The only role of government in business should be to ensure level playing field for everyone.

I don't know how we could argue with this incredible insight. Thank you for elucidating everything for me.

"It seems to me that this really boxes the Congress in on some very important questions," he told Kirk at a Wednesday hearing. "The Congress is now going to have to be looking over our shoulder with respect to whether or not we've done something that could cause an ACTA party nation to sue us."

"All over the world, you've got parliaments and legislators having debates on whether or not to pass ACTA," Wyden continued. "Why shouldn't the United States Senate consider something like this? As you know, the traditional practice is when something is considered a treaty—a binding agreement—it comes before the Senate."

Please forgive me if someone already mentioned this. Do we have a Senator who honestly does not know Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of our constitution? Where it states that the President may sign the treaty, but before it becomes effective in the U.S. that it must be approved by a supermajority of the Senate?

edit: Changed Congress to the Senate. Again, need to proof-read more.

That is an odd interpretation of the phrase "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur".

That is all it says. It doesn't say the "President may sign the treaty, but before it becomes effective in the U.S. that it must be approved by a supermajority of the Senate". It says "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur". He has not sought "the Advice and Consent of the Senate", and two thirds have not yet concured.

It's great to hear everything in these talks is open and transparent. I look forward to seeing the details published so that all the people affected by ACTA can see what is proposed and how governments are reflecting their citizens' rights.

"It seems to me that this really boxes the Congress in on some very important questions," he told Kirk at a Wednesday hearing. "The Congress is now going to have to be looking over our shoulder with respect to whether or not we've done something that could cause an ACTA party nation to sue us."

"All over the world, you've got parliaments and legislators having debates on whether or not to pass ACTA," Wyden continued. "Why shouldn't the United States Senate consider something like this? As you know, the traditional practice is when something is considered a treaty—a binding agreement—it comes before the Senate."

Please forgive me if someone already mentioned this. Do we have a Senator who honestly does not know Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of our constitution? Where it states that the President may sign the treaty, but before it becomes effective in the U.S. that it must be approved by a supermajority of the Senate?

edit: Changed Congress to the Senate. Again, need to proof-read more.

That is an odd interpretation of the phrase "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur".

That is all it says. It doesn't say the "President may sign the treaty, but before it becomes effective in the U.S. that it must be approved by a supermajority of the Senate". It says "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur". He has not sought "the Advice and Consent of the Senate", and two thirds have not yet concured.

This is the same guy (Obama) who insisted our activity in Libya didn't rise to the level of hostilities (apparently our aircraft were dropping only flowers). He is an unrepentant liar.

Please forgive me if someone already mentioned this. Do we have a Senator who honestly does not know Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of our constitution? Where it states that the President may sign the treaty, but before it becomes effective in the U.S. that it must be approved by a supermajority of the Senate?

edit: Changed Congress to the Senate. Again, need to proof-read more.

That is an odd interpretation of the phrase "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur".

That is all it says. It doesn't say the "President may sign the treaty, but before it becomes effective in the U.S. that it must be approved by a supermajority of the Senate". It says "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur". He has not sought "the Advice and Consent of the Senate", and two thirds have not yet concured.

There are many examples of treaties being signed by the President, but not approved by Senate or ratified. Signing a treaty doesn't mean the same thing as ratifying or enacting it. It's just a way to tell the Senate, "Negotiations are done, vote on this."

edit: Of course, as far as I can tell the Executive branch is completely wrong about not needing the Senate to approve it before it becomes effective. But nosensewhatsoever's reading is the one that the US has been operating under for a long time.

It's fun to see people ripping on republicans on an article about a democrat and that democrat's goons.

It isn't (R) or (D) that is the problem.It's the continual loss of freedoms over the years... I recall someone having written something before me regarding lobbyists... and those are the guys that write most of the laws that Congress votes upon.

Progressives have kept advancing society with legislation, edicts, and the courts.This is just another example. It's not likely to stop no matter who is living in the big house... only how fast it progresses."Rights" and "equalities" and "fairness" will be the death of prosperity.

Ending the war on drugs and drastically cutting military spending alone are probably two of the best things that could be done for the economy.

Also, framing an argument in either more or less regulation tends to be foolish. The amount of regulation is not as important as what the regulation ends up doing. For example, sometimes the effects of regulations are that they raise the barrier to entry in a market, damaging competition, so more regulations can easily turn the tide further in the favor of established corporations.

It depends on what is done with the money recouped from ending the warn on drugs and military spending.

------->{{{{{You have to recall all of this doesn't take place in a vacuum. Government spending has a stimulative economic effect.

If you're of the mind that the economic problems America has can be fixed by cutting out chunks of government I don't think we could have an intellectual discussion on the subject.

Edit: to put it simply, for most of what Ron Paul stands for you'd actually need someone implementing exactly the opposite of his ideas if you wanted America to move in any direction than toward a complete economic and societal collapse.

}}}}}}}}<------------------------

The problem i see jackstrop is that if you believe "Government spending has a stimulative economic effect, then I believe I don't think we could have an intellectual discussion on the subject. Government gets its money from one of two places: the people and or borrowing. The government will never spend our money on things that we directly want. Now before we go any further I must preface the following with the context that I now live in a state with no income tax vs. my prior residence of "Taxachusetts" (Massachusetts). In my current residence, everyone pays equal taxes and everyone pays taxes, because the only tax we pay is a 9.25% sales tax on everything other than food which is taxed at a 7.25% tax rate. You do not take percents to the bank, so the whole income tax and unfair % vs income arguments are all still specious and misleading. Dollars in the bank are all that matters. The rich still support most of everything in America, as on a 70000 a year income i am only contributing at the end of the day $1500 or so in taxes. The fairest system is one in which 1. an equal percentage of dollars used is charged to all, and 2. you actually have control over how much you pay. If I do not feel like paying my money to the state, simply put I can choose to not spend money and not be taxed. Businesses and wealthy people will not stop spending money to avoid taxation, because overall the dollar amounts will not hurt them at an even tax rate, but those on ther verge of poverty can have some control and better yet, it helps them to hold on to money by discouraging wasteful spending. Many people will still spend their money unwisely, but no policy will ever stop that. Back to my point in reply though; people in charge of their own income, will produce more economic stimulus through spending , than a government that artificially allocates that monetary distribution through political decisions that are at best marginally productive, and at worst, simply waste money throwing it down sinkholes. If you don't believe me, just look at some of the stupid stuff the government wastes money on, i.e. a unproven drug for a disease that is classified as being snuffed out worldwide years ago and the only two powers that have a viable form of it are our own government and the Russian government, and we waste 500 million dollars developing it. It is no wonder that the company developing it just happens to have contributed heavily to the current administration, who in turn funded this research. Our money is only making the people in power rich, and only a complete break from an income tax system that is beyond broken, will begin to fix this. This is some of what Ron Paul wants, and by the way he is right, nowhere does the constitution authorize a systematic taxation of income. Taxation without Representation spurred the War of Independence, the nations founders were smart individuals and intended on a new system, not another iteration of an old system, which we seem to be finding our way back to. Burying your head in the sand and believing that a government of career politicians is going to stimulate our economy, is the height of ignorance. Our government was founded by wealthy people who believed in civil service as way and path to freedom to find our own way. None of the founders needed the income from being involved in government to be successful, they already were. they were motivated by a desire for a better system. Now we have a government of people whose monetary success is rooted in keeping their position in government. This is a recipe for disaster, as their lifespan of good ideas is long gone before their tenure is over. This is where they become advocates for hire by businesses. Constitutionalism is the way out of this over beurocratic mess. The constitution advocates the rights of states as being paramount, and the federal government as only providing a framework in which the states efforts are coordinated. This is the right system and is not what we practice now. I could write a dissertation on where reliance on government to stimulate the economy is wrong, but suffice it to say that your disdainful remarks about not being able to have an intelligent conversation, show you to be intolerant of challenge to your ingrained ideas, and not quite intelligent enough to look past what you are being fed.

"It is better to keep you mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt""Those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it's mistakes"

Our current system is broken, and continuing down a two party road will never fix it. There must be a successful third party at the very least, and more likely a system with multiple parties to keep policies down the middle of the road catering equally to all segments, of society rather than drifting off too much to one side or the other. Lobbyists can buy two parties support, could they afford to buy 5 parties worth of majority support? It is doubtful. Every day, I come to realize that no one wants to step up and lead such change. Perhaps now is the time to launch a new opposition party, with effective management, and disciplined organization. I welcome feedback and support.

1) Your whole argument about flat tax versus progressive hinges on your definition of what "fair" means. Applying your own morals to the argument doesn't make you "right", except in the minds of those that agree with you.

2) I agree that the government is immensely wasteful, but axing whole departments isn't a quick fix. Streamlining and efficiency are the keys, but nobody in government actually wants that, no matter what their stump speeches say.

3) If by "the Constituition" you mean ignoring all amendments, then taxation might not be authorized. I can't imagine how you read the 16th Amendment any other way but explicitly authorizing income tax. If you don't agree with it, mount a campaign to repeal it, but simply ignoring it doesn't solve anything. Even repealing it doesn't guarantee income tax is judged unconstitutional, factoring in Article One, Sec Eight and the Court's ruling in the Penn Mutual case.

4) I agree that the system is broken, but there are no quick fixes. More parties is a great idea, but even if a third party is successful, in time it will again morph into a two party system, even if one of the new parties happens to be the original "third" party. Fundamental reform is needed, but the system itself fights against that at every step. Sadly, I don't see this changing in my lifetime.

You have to recall all of this doesn't take place in a vacuum. Government spending has a stimulative economic effect.

You are either delusional or a govt employee. The only thing govts do economically is transfer money from productive class to the lazy one, or their connected buddies.The only role of government in business should be to ensure level playing field for everyone.

Oh you mean all those lazy assed cops you call when your car is missing? Oh and those lazy assed firemen dragging their lazy asses through burning buildings to save those lazy assed teachers.

Let's not forget those lazy assed construction workers that keep those bridges from falling, and keep freeways running at 70MPH (as opposed to 45MPH dirt roads). And those lazy assed maintenance crews that replace things like stop lights when they burnout.

At last but not least all those lazy assed military kids, spending our hard earn taxes, vacationing in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ya, I see your point...

Geeze. It's like some people just press the "Play" button somewhere in their brain, that plays back something they heard on some radio/TV program, but they've never listened to what was being said, on the way in, or on the way out.

In a time when money is free speech and "free speech" (aka money) buys a robot the Republican nomination because he literally outspends all his competitors combined, do you really think any politician is going to oppose the giant corporate interests that want nothing more than to trample over anything--people, the Constitution, legality, transparency, whatever--that even BEGINS to cast a faint shadow over the checkbooks of these corporations?

Oh no. Democrat, Republican, independent... they'll all bow their knee to the Corporate Gods and their Money Speech.

And they'll confuse the general public by saying one thing and doing another because they know that the Corporate Gods own the cable news networks that any side (Liberal MSNBC, Meh CNN, and Conservative Fox News) will watch. So those networks have no reason, no reason at all, to cover these subjects very well before moving into hyperbole or idiocy or just flat out ignoring or changing the subject.

Remember when Murdoch was getting reamed? Then CNN and MSNBC, full on the joygasm they got at getting to stick it to the #1 news leader or whatever, realized that this whole "Fox News is bad, overly large conglomerate news organizations are bad," could and would turn against them in due course.

Bam, it was gone. It was like someone somewhere pulled a lever and suddenly the story was gone, replaced by something less threatening. Like deaths in Syria or the overdose of some pop star. Barely to be heard from again.

This is how the 24 hour news cycle is dangerous and how it plays right into the hands of those who absolutely want that money is free speech and corporations are people bs to overwhelm our political system until it collapses under the weight of their greed.

So far, they've been able to keep this thing going based on the fact that most people are swallowed up in learned helplessness with regards to politics and their conditions. But the Tea Party and the Occupy Movements prove that restlessness is growing. That's why eventually all sides had to mock, even if Fox's is subtle, the Tea Party and completely gut the Occupy movement with "public safety" bs. They are trying to keep people feeling crushed, overwhelmed, and distracted.

Eventually, they'll either convince everyone that our Corporate Masters know best or the people'll rise up and wash away the filth and idiocy. My bet is on the Corporations winning. They've stacked the deck over the last 30 years, slowly putting pieces in place that would give them all the great moves to ensure their power is sustained.

In fact, you could argue that the Romney vs Santorum fight is literally the fight of the Corporate dollar versus the will of the Tea Party. See, that's horrible part of it. People are so obsessed fighting over which of these few options is the one they like best, they aren't stopping to say, "Hey, none of these choices is worth doing." Who wants a robot millionaire who sees Nascar in terms of his buddies who own racing teams or who thinks the size of trees is what makes a place great to be a president in charge of understanding your plight in life in this time of joblessness? Or a guy who seems to truly misunderstand every issue presented him, confusing what JFK meant in a speech about the separation of church and state, who actually argued that kids shouldn't be encouraged to go to college but who has an MBA, who's sweater vest had a twitter feed, and who seems to want to cry for freedom of religion in as far as it protects Christianity and only Christianity while decrying any protection of the right of Muslims in any way? Then there's the perennial screw-up Gingrich who argues for the sanctity of marriage while having divorced after publicized affairs each and every time, who converted to Catholicism and is now apparently a catholic expert, who tried to impeach Clinton for lying about a bj while he was busy lying about an actual long-term affair, who wants to build a moon base to mine for rocks while arguing for fiscal responsibility and the need for Obamacare to be destroyed because it's "wasting tax payer money..."

Do any of these people really need to be president? Then there's Obama who has continued Dubya's slow march toward making the President's Executive branch into a power-hungry grab for more power, starting wars without the approval of Congress, killing American citizens and diminishing "due process" to "not judicial process," throwing privacy-fairy-killing scanners into every airport under a grossly mismanaged and inefficient organization (TSA) whose mandate seems to be to waste money and only minimally improve security while providing the illusion of security for those too stupid to see through it, and agreeing to treaties while not letting Congress actually ratify them because they know it won't pass. Plus, he failed to shut down Gitmo at any cost, wasted a year trying to appease Republicans who said on Day 1 their mission was to ensure Obama was a one term prez, so they weren't going to actually work with him on anything, and who gave up on the Single Payer system that healthcare truly needed again to appease those damn Republicans that really never came over anyway.

None of these crackpots deserves to be president. Of course, there's also Ron Paul, but he's that crazy uncle everyone likes to laugh with and no one ever takes seriously. Even when he's sober, though it's rare that the stars align and that happens...

Ending the war on drugs and drastically cutting military spending alone are probably two of the best things that could be done for the economy.

Also, framing an argument in either more or less regulation tends to be foolish. The amount of regulation is not as important as what the regulation ends up doing. For example, sometimes the effects of regulations are that they raise the barrier to entry in a market, damaging competition, so more regulations can easily turn the tide further in the favor of established corporations.

It depends on what is done with the money recouped from ending the warn on drugs and military spending.

------->{{{{{You have to recall all of this doesn't take place in a vacuum. Government spending has a stimulative economic effect.

If you're of the mind that the economic problems America has can be fixed by cutting out chunks of government I don't think we could have an intellectual discussion on the subject.

Edit: to put it simply, for most of what Ron Paul stands for you'd actually need someone implementing exactly the opposite of his ideas if you wanted America to move in any direction than toward a complete economic and societal collapse.

}}}}}}}}<------------------------

The problem i see jackstrop is that if you believe "Government spending has a stimulative economic effect, then I believe I don't think we could have an intellectual discussion on the subject. Government gets its money from one of two places: the people and or borrowing. The government will never spend our money on things that we directly want. Now before we go any further I must preface the following with the context that I now live in a state with no income tax vs. my prior residence of "Taxachusetts" (Massachusetts). In my current residence, everyone pays equal taxes and everyone pays taxes, because the only tax we pay is a 9.25% sales tax on everything other than food which is taxed at a 7.25% tax rate. You do not take percents to the bank, so the whole income tax and unfair % vs income arguments are all still specious and misleading. Dollars in the bank are all that matters. The rich still support most of everything in America, as on a 70000 a year income i am only contributing at the end of the day $1500 or so in taxes. The fairest system is one in which 1. an equal percentage of dollars used is charged to all, and 2. you actually have control over how much you pay. If I do not feel like paying my money to the state, simply put I can choose to not spend money and not be taxed. Businesses and wealthy people will not stop spending money to avoid taxation, because overall the dollar amounts will not hurt them at an even tax rate, but those on ther verge of poverty can have some control and better yet, it helps them to hold on to money by discouraging wasteful spending. Many people will still spend their money unwisely, but no policy will ever stop that. Back to my point in reply though; people in charge of their own income, will produce more economic stimulus through spending , than a government that artificially allocates that monetary distribution through political decisions that are at best marginally productive, and at worst, simply waste money throwing it down sinkholes. If you don't believe me, just look at some of the stupid stuff the government wastes money on, i.e. a unproven drug for a disease that is classified as being snuffed out worldwide years ago and the only two powers that have a viable form of it are our own government and the Russian government, and we waste 500 million dollars developing it. It is no wonder that the company developing it just happens to have contributed heavily to the current administration, who in turn funded this research. Our money is only making the people in power rich, and only a complete break from an income tax system that is beyond broken, will begin to fix this. This is some of what Ron Paul wants, and by the way he is right, nowhere does the constitution authorize a systematic taxation of income. Taxation without Representation spurred the War of Independence, the nations founders were smart individuals and intended on a new system, not another iteration of an old system, which we seem to be finding our way back to. Burying your head in the sand and believing that a government of career politicians is going to stimulate our economy, is the height of ignorance. Our government was founded by wealthy people who believed in civil service as way and path to freedom to find our own way. None of the founders needed the income from being involved in government to be successful, they already were. they were motivated by a desire for a better system. Now we have a government of people whose monetary success is rooted in keeping their position in government. This is a recipe for disaster, as their lifespan of good ideas is long gone before their tenure is over. This is where they become advocates for hire by businesses. Constitutionalism is the way out of this over beurocratic mess. The constitution advocates the rights of states as being paramount, and the federal government as only providing a framework in which the states efforts are coordinated. This is the right system and is not what we practice now. I could write a dissertation on where reliance on government to stimulate the economy is wrong, but suffice it to say that your disdainful remarks about not being able to have an intelligent conversation, show you to be intolerant of challenge to your ingrained ideas, and not quite intelligent enough to look past what you are being fed.

"It is better to keep you mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt""Those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it's mistakes"

Our current system is broken, and continuing down a two party road will never fix it. There must be a successful third party at the very least, and more likely a system with multiple parties to keep policies down the middle of the road catering equally to all segments, of society rather than drifting off too much to one side or the other. Lobbyists can buy two parties support, could they afford to buy 5 parties worth of majority support? It is doubtful. Every day, I come to realize that no one wants to step up and lead such change. Perhaps now is the time to launch a new opposition party, with effective management, and disciplined organization. I welcome feedback and support.

Since you quoted me I'll go on the assumption you've got something to say to me. If that's the case then go back, edit this into something readable, and I'll read it later on if you do.